Amphibious warfare ships - Helicopter carriers

Of course the cowardice of the French government bowing to US pressure has led to this no longer being the best option, but not only did the Russians get their money back, they also got a copy of the full plans for the vessels and produced half of each one, they also now have the potential to sell the components to fit out the ships for Egypt including helos and electronics etc.

The pressure was from Poland in frist place. While we didn't give Mistral to Russia they decided that they won't buy french helicopters and opted for US. It's a big joke for us here and its seen very badly here. Moreover they were supposed to go in the pacific ...

I seem to remember the US also placed a lot of pressure on Paris, including some sort of default punishment for something completely unrelated that went away when Paris decided not to deliver on the signed and paid for legally binding contract.

Now that you mention it I do remember Poland offering to buy a large number of French helos to convince them to not sell to Russia... thought the French reaction when Poland cancelled was hilarious... what could they say to Poland for reneging on the deal that wasn't even signed or paid for that did not reflect badly on them for reneging and backing out of the much larger deal with Moscow...

Ahhh, well... likely no major deals with Russia for the future... I would actually think that the Russians might have ordered two more vessels if everything had gone to plan, so it probably cost France quite a bit of money. Of course the second two vessels would have been built in Russia, but there would have been the potential for a country like India or even Egypt to consider buying a few carriers while they were in production... and the huge irony is that they likely would have based the first two in the Pacific Fleet which is a fairly long way away from Poland and the other two probably would have gone to the Northern Fleet to support increased arctic operations... also a long way away from Poland...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Yes you are right. The total number would have been 2+2 for Russia and Egypt would have probably ordered 2. So they sold 2 instead of 6 and didn't sell any helicopter.

Poland is just a US satelite state in EU, always pretending they will be attacked by Russia while they allow US to deploy troops and missiles on they borders. They should fire them from EU. They are a limit to the relations EU-Russia.

The Russian Navy expects to receive two brand new Lavina ('Avalanche')-class amphibious assault ships under the next state armaments procurement program. According to the Ministry of Defense, the ships will take the place of the Mistrals, the two French vessels which Moscow ordered but never received.

The new ships, expected to be delivered before 2025, are distinct from the Project 11711 Ivan Gren class of landing ships that are currently being built for the Russian Navy. According to Zvezda, the official television network of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Lavina design "looks more like the Mistral, in that it features a bare carrier deck used to base Ka-52K attack and Ka-32 ASW helicopters."

Lavina-class ships will be fitted with a powerful anti-aircraft system onboard, in the form of the naval version of the Pantsir-S. Furthermore, the amphibious assault ships will feature the AK-176MA 76.2 mm naval gun, a weapons system that's controlled and fired using a digital guidance system.

The ship will be able to land a contingent of up to 60 light armored vehicles, at least 20-30 main battle tanks, or more than 500 marines. Absent a direct approach to a coastal area, the ship will deliver the troops and armor using four Project 11770M or two Project 12061M landing craft.

Charly015 has a recent article with some interesting deck/hangar layouts from a brochure http://charly015.blogspot.co.nz/2017/06/el-sustituto-de-los-buques-mistral-para.htmlIts quite an interestingly unique/odd layout2 hangars in the island for 3 choppers each.Forward hangar for 9 more choppers connected to the forward lift.Port elevator goes down to the vehicle deck.

The dock area is odd.Wheras normal LHDs have a door across the back of the dock this one basically has an open dock with a door/ramp at the back of the vehicle deck.Means no need to ballast for dock ops but also means the landing craft have to be stored on the vehicle deck & lifted in/out which is surely less efficient.

By comparison seems the US can even omit landing craft & use the dock floor for extra vehicle deck area when using theirs for transport between bases, use the rear door as a ramp when not ballasted.

With the bow ramp however they should be able to omit the landing craft and fill that entire area with armoured vehicles if there is an opportunity to land forces on the beach.

And of course if the vehicles were all amphibious they could also use the area for the landing ships for armoured vehicles too.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Hi everybody! First thread comment on this forum (already introduced myself in the Member Introductions forum).

hoom wrote:

The dock area is odd.Wheras normal LHDs have a door across the back of the dock this one basically has an open dock with a door/ramp at the back of the vehicle deck.Means no need to ballast for dock ops but also means the landing craft have to be stored on the vehicle deck & lifted in/out which is surely less efficient.

By comparison seems the US can even omit landing craft & use the dock floor for extra vehicle deck area when using theirs for transport between bases, use the rear door as a ramp when not ballasted.

On this subject, I think this configuration was selected as a compromise to expand the ships multirole capabilities cutting back a little on thebeach landing craft/armour numbers.

If we think about it, for most of these ships' operational life, they will serve as helicopter carriers, either for anti-sub warfare, or for surface strike,because Russia very rarely engages in the kind of expeditionary warfare that is the bread and butter of NATO navies, and their amphibious warfareships.

That said, I think one thing about the dock and its potential use is being overlooked, and it could be this ship's strong selling point.Why is it that there is an elevator that connects the dock / vehicle bay to the ship's deck? Seems unnecessary... unlessWhat if one of this ship's role is to carry containerised weapon systems (missiles, or aerial or underwater drones)?You only have to put some semi-trucks with the containers and a forklift in the dock, and suddenly your surface strike capability, or your ASW role is enhanced by these weapon systems.

If that is what's on the ship's designers minds, then I think it is a very versatile configuration, with some (inevitable) compromises.

Why is it that there is an elevator that connects the dock / vehicle bay to the ship's deck?

Thats pretty standard at least on recentish LHDs.You want to have access for loads to be airlifted &/or option to use hangar/flightdeck for extra vehicles, alternately use the vehicle deck for extra hangar.

On that point I'd somehow not recognised that the forward lift to the hangar does actually go down to the vehicle deck as well, I'd been thinking there wasn't a direct link there

Another thing: I'm wondering if this would pass the 'not a carrier' test for Montreaux Convention? Having the bow ramp helps reinforce Primary task as landing ship I guess?

Why is it that there is an elevator that connects the dock / vehicle bay to the ship's deck?

Thats pretty standard at least on recentish LHDs.You want to have access for loads to be airlifted &/or option to use hangar/flightdeck for extra vehicles, alternately use the vehicle deck for extra hangar.

On that point I'd somehow not recognised that the forward lift to the hangar does actually go down to the vehicle deck as well, I'd been thinking there wasn't a direct link there

OK, that explains it then. The reason I thought on these ships the elevators only served the aircraft hangar is that I've only seen (in photos or videos) aircraft deployed on their decks, just like in "normal" carriers.Anyway, since Russia is investing heavily in the use of containerised weapon systems, maybe this is a good platform for their deployment.

Another thing: I'm wondering if this would pass the 'not a carrier' test for Montreaux Convention?Having the bow ramp helps reinforce Primary task as landing ship I guess?

The Montreaux Convention specifically talks about ships whose only purpose is to carry aircraft... so Kiev classes did not count as they were armed with a range of weapons and therefore multipurpose.

This ship would be a landing vehicle as well as a carrier of aircraft so the convention would not apply here either.

With the bow ramp and the range of vehicle mounted weapons systems the Russians operate it expands the potential considerably... imagine a few TOPOL vehicles rolling on board to be move to the deck to fire their missiles in the south atlantic... or all the air defence or artillery vehicles you could carry... a landing could be supported by a couple of Smerch batteries firing from the deck of one vessel... or iskander could be used.

As a ship for the Russian navy however with humanitarian interventions lots of transport helos could be carried in emergencies like floods or famine to rescue people and deliver food and water and equipment...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

The lead Priboy-class amphibious assault ship will cost about 40 billion rubles ($675 million) and it will take up to five years to build it, Head of the Prospective Shipbuilding Department at Russia’s Krylov State Research Center Vladimir Pepelyayev told TASS.

In all, Russia’s Navy is planning to receive two amphibious assault ships before 2025, he added.

"At our estimates, such a ship will cost around 40 billion rubles, considering all development stages, construction and trials," Pepelyayev said.

Speaking about the timeframe, the department’s head said that it would take about one year to work out a rough design and 1-1.5 years to develop a detail design and then the development of its design documentation and construction will follow.

Image showing Krylov Central Scientific Research Institute's Avalanche (Lavina) Project with the official seal of the Russian Navy

"In all, no less than five years will pass from the beginning of the R&D work to the delivery of the ship to the Navy," Pepelyayev said.

According to him, the requirements specification for the development of the amphibious assault ship has not been received yet.

"If a decision to build the ship is taken soon, the Krylov State Research Center will be able to complete the work on the conceptual design in cooperation with the Nevskoye Design Bureau before the yearend and then the design bureau will be able to start developing the amphibious assault ship," Pepelyayev said.

As Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief for Armament Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said earlier, the Navy is planning to receive at least two Priboy-class amphibious assault ships by 2025.

According to him, the Navy needs such ships and the new 2018-2025 state armament program envisages their development and construction.

About the Priboy LHDRussian Krylov State Research Center has developed the Priboy LHD on its own initiative. It is significantly different from the Mistral landing helicopter dock designed by DCNS. Priboy is intended for seaborne movement of troops and military equipment and landing on beaches during amphibious operation in conjunction with other naval forces. It can support projection of soldiers and hardware, take part in offensive mining actions and mount sonar beacons of suspended array surveillance systems.

The Priboy ship has a displacement of 23,000 tones, a length of 200 meters, a width of 34 meters, a designed draught of 7.5 meters, a full speed of 20 knots, a cruising speed of 14 knots, an endurance of 6,000 miles and a cruising capacity of 30 days.

The ship can withstand storms of force 6-7 on the Beaufort scale (strong breeze/near gale). The helicopter carrier is planned to be equipped with a gas-turbine main propulsion plant. The ship’s crew totals about 400. The vessel can transport 500-900 marines, about 50 infantry fighting vehicles and up to 10 tanks.

Up to 12 military transport and search and rescue helicopters can be based on the Priboy ship. It can also carry six landing boats with a cargo-carrying capacity of 45 tons and six assault boats on davits.

The Priboy`s armament suite includes two anti-air gun-missile combat modules, two close-in weapon systems and one 76mm naval gun.